Fox News Really Wants You Not To Think Gun Control Would Have Prevented Aurora, Colorado Shootings

I’ll give props to Fox News for their overall tasteful coverage of the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, at least in the 24-hour aftermath. I’ll bet that by Monday they’ll have figured out a way to attack liberals and/or President Obama over it. But in the meanwhile, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Jon Scott all managed to work in comments letting viewers know that there's no need to consider the shooter’s easy access to guns and whether that had anything to do with the slayings that killed 12 people and wounded 58 more during a midnight premiere of the latest Batman movie.

On The O’Reilly Factor last night, Bill O’Reilly opened his Talking Points commentary with:

Bad things happen to good people. Nobody knows why, it’s just the way life is. Once again, we have mass murder in America and the killer is a young man who simply is out of his mind. It’s nobody’s fault. There’s no policy deficit. It’s just an atrocity that’s impossible to explain.

O’Reilly went on to claim that this was the fifth time in 13 years that an American has committed mass murder. I don’t know what statistics he used but The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence lists hundreds of mass shootings just since 2005. The Brady Campaign counts 60 just since the shooting in Tucson that nearly killed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January, 2011 but took the lives of six others. In the aftermath of that killing, USA Today wrote that the United States has averaged 20 mass shootings a year for decades. Whether that number has gone up since then or the Brady Campaign uses a lower standard for what it considers a “mass shooting,” it’s pretty clear that O’Reilly’s statistic is at least open to question. It was also designed to suggest there’s no real problem.

O’Reilly concluded his commentary with:

Once again, we have a crazy guy, causing a massive amount of pain and destruction. There’s little else to say.

A report from and interview with Fox’s Jon Scott in Colorado followed.

“Is there a culture in Colorado that is casual about firearms - because you know that’s gonna come up?” O’Reilly asked Scott. He was referring, of course, to the shooting in Columbine, Colorado 13 years ago, not far from Aurora. When he lived in Aurora, O’Reilly said, “Everybody was outdoors, there’s obviously a western tradition where everybody has access to guns and this guy bought his guns legally, I understand.” Then in a not-so-subtle hint to Scott, a Colorado native, O’Reilly said, “They respect firearms there but it isn’t difficult to get them.”

“It is not difficult to get them,” Scott agreed. “I think there is a respect and a healthy kind of respect for firearms here. When I lived here in my early 20’s, I had a rifle rack in the back of my pickup and would, you know, go up into the mountains and plink with a .22. It’s quite common out here. This just seems to be the case of an individual who just snapped.”

Sean Hannity enlisted psychotherapist Dr. Robi Ludwig to help him advance his meme, or tried to, albeit in a more gingerly fashion. “These incidents happen, Doctor, and it’s so senseless,” Hannity said pointedly.

“It’s very hard to predict who is going to be violent,” Ludwig told him. And I’ve no cause to doubt her. She said it sounded as if the shooter suffered “some sort of break” and “in his mind he became part of the movie.”

Later, Hannity broached the topic again. “It was frustrating to me as some people go out there on social media and they start a gun control debate or they start a debate and they want to blame talk radio and so on and so forth. But can’t there just be people that are bad people, that are disconnected from reality?”

Ludwig reached her hand out, as if to touch Hannity and reassure him. But she did not quite give the answer he was looking for. “Absolutely. There can be people who are bad, who are nasty and evil and don’t care about other people. I don’t know if this person fits into that category.”

I can assure you that Hannity try again at a more opportune moment, especially if he can find a way to attack Democrats or liberals at the same time.

But there’s one fact that nobody on Fox can dispute and that’s surely what worries them: that such horrific carnage could only occur when a madman has free access to guns. As Adam Gopnik wrote about the massacre in The New Yorker: "The bullets were fired so freely that they penetrated the wall separating one movie theatre in a multiplex to devastate people in the next one."

Gopnik – whose own child was at a midnight screening of Batman that same night but, thank goodness, in another theater - also noted, “Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue.”

Showing 17 reactions

Visitor 55: Thank you for the correction. I am not great at spelling and there were other mistakes you failed to mention….and to the spelling police, Patrick, your own words quoted “Iâll be the spelling police for this reason.My training and experience has given me an engineerâs or architectâs regard for precision and if you cannot rely on someone to get the small details of their supposedly native language correct why should we rely on them to get larger things correct?Itâs a matter of credibility to me.” and “Thisextends” … would precision be in typing errors? It is amuzing that those who point fingers usually are just as fallible. I am humbled by the correction and welcome it Visitor 55. Naive…now I will never forget how to spell that word. Thank you so much!
I still believe, only beause it is fact. A gun, or weapon of any sort, has never killed anyone…by itself. It takes a human to create the action. Could there be stricter gun laws that would not kill the 2nd Ammendment? Sure. Does that bother me? No. I have one weapon. I don’t hunt. And stricter gun laws wouldn’t affect me or my life. My whole point wasn’t political…people with political agendas never listen to reason, so, I wasn’t taking that road. I am simply saying, it doesn’t matter how many laws are put in place, no matter how many regulations you impose on the people, you will not stop tragedies with law. Besides, look at history. We can learn so much by studying history. Our own history really is the best way to learn. Hind sight is 20/20.
So vote and push for whatever laws you wish. It’s what makes this such a great nation! We are Americans, free, proud, and a hundred different view points. Whether or not we agree we are still all after the same thing….happiness. I respect your point of view but I dissagree. And that is ok. Laws don’t change insanity; they just restrict the lawful.

It’s not 12 people in a movie theater, but an 86 year old man (allegedly) murdered 10 people and injured 70 more by speeding into a crowded farmers market in California. He claimed loss of control, yet managed to miss all of the cars and trucks in 2+ blocks before running into innocent victims.

I think you’re on to something. There are approximately 250 million registered cars and 270 million guns in the United States. Each year there are approximately 40 thousand people killed by automobiles and 30 thousand people killed by guns (all cause mortality in both cases).

From this, we can infer the lethality of each given device. For automobiles, there are about 6,200 registered vehicles per person killed by them. For guns, there are about 9,000 registered guns per person killed by them. Therefore, automobiles are about 1.4 times more effective at killing than guns. And that really says something, because a gun’s sole purpose is to kill, whereas a vehicle, not so much.

I would fully support a ban on automobiles. Now, the gun control… that’s a toughie. Not that I’m against it, but you would have to completely overhaul the way guns are bought, sold, and traded, which would mean taking on the gun industry, the NRA (the NAMBLA of gun nuts, if you will), various right wing loonies, people who “want to take back their country”, and other people who think that regulation is equivalent to banning (as you point out as one of their favorite straw-men).

What would that overhaul look like? I think it would be a lot like the DMV. In fact, let’s call it the Division of Mechanical Weaponry. We could even combine the two offices for government efficiency!

It would work similarly to vehicle titling and registration. All weaponry must have a unique WIN (Weaponry Identification Number) assigned to it, either by the manufacturer, or by the DMW. Private sales of weaponry would require a change of title, which can only be done at the DMW or authorized weaponry dealerships, in person, by both parties. Commercial sales would work much the same. At time of sale, a licensing check will be performed (why is it that the DMV immediately knows when I get a parking ticket in the City, yet it takes days or longer to find out if I’m a convicted felon?). Assuming there are no irregularities, the sale and transfer of title is approved and is registered to the new owner.

@Labman57- the gunners will tell you that the purpose of the second was not to help the government but to protect yourself from it although according to the theory we are the government.
I’ve never understood why anyone would need a semiautomatic rifle even if only for hunting. If you need something like that you’re not a hunter you’re a shooter. Thisextends to the rifle this maniac carried.
I’m a Colorado native and lived the biggest share of my life there including lots of time on the Western slope where hunting deer, elk, and other big game is a way of life and the very best hunter I’ve known used nothing but Ruger number one falling block action single shot rifles with iron sights. This guy was also a combat veteran of the military misadventure in southeast Asia. His woodcraft skills were such he could steal your hair and not move your hat, steal your radio and leave you the music. Lots of thought and practice.

@ Visitor 55- I’ll be the spelling police for this reason.My training and experience has given me an engineer’s or architect’s regard for precision and if you cannot rely on someone to get the small details of their supposedly native language correct why should we rely on them to get larger things correct?It’s a matter of credibility to me.

The right to bear arms was incorporated into the Constitution because the government did not have a substantial standing army and wanted to make sure that a civilian militia could be recruited quickly and efficiently should the need arise.

In other words, the Second Amendment was written so that the public could HELP the government, not in order to attack the government. With our modern armed forces — including the National Guard — this type of civilian-based militia is no longer a necessity.

In addition, I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned “arms” which could fire 50-60 rounds per minute. Â
Want to keep a shotgun under the bed, a hunting rifle in the closet, or a handgun in the bureau drawer? Â Be my guest.
Want to use high-capacity magazines with your Glock … or keep a semi-automatic assault rifle in the closet? Â That’s another story.

@Allen McDaniel, I’m not being the spelling police, but I believe that if you mean naive and you’re going to call others naive, you should at least know how to spell it. nieve is the Spanish word for snow.

Nobody wants to make firearms in America completely illegal. And the day a car slams into a packed movie theater, kills 12 and hurts 60+, then we should talk about banning cars. That’s such a stupid comparison that the extreme pro-gun people like to use. As for people using illegal drugs, that’s their choice and the majority of the time they’re only killing themselves.

Why do extremist pro-gun people like to pretend that gun control means the same thing as banning guns? There is a huge difference. I’m a gun owner and I strongly believe that gun control would regulate gun purchases so that mentally disturbed/ill people like holmes whose backgrounds are properly checked are stopped before they kill innocent people. It’s crazy that anyone can go to a gun show and purchase an assault weapon within 30 minutes. No ID verification, no background check. It’s harder to vote in this country than it is to buy a gun. Naivete is if you don’t see anything wrong with that.

Kelstar. Guns are people too, my friend. They have feet because they were walked to Mexico. The two guns found at the Boarder Guard murder are now in prison, even though their is no proof that they were used to kill the Guard. The guns used in this Friday
murder are now in jail and they will certainly be sent to prison.

Friends, believing gun control, or any control as far as that goes, was going to stop this from happening is a nieve thought in it’s conception. I understand why this debate is even a debate. People have political views to push. I hate politics…because whichever side you are on…spin = lies or deception. Truth (anti-spin) Some drugs are illegal they are attained every day by thousands and thousands of lives are affected tragically everyday. Drinking and driving, illegal, yets hundreds are killed every year because of this law being broken. What about armed robbery? Illegal. Yet happens all the time. It is nieve to believe that making a law would stop someone, like this individual, stop his horrible plan. What a law does is stop people like you and I, who obey the law and abide by whatever moral code we choose to live by. Seriously, do honestly believe if the United States of America made fire arms completely illegal the violence committed by guns in this country would completely stop? I completely understand needing to find a solution and needing to find a reason for a tragedy like this. It is a NEED for us as humans to find a reason why something like this occured and find a solution to keep it from happening again for us to find closure and fight the fear. It is a must for us! I completely understand. But sometimes people do things for no good reason. If this guy came out next week and announced a statement to the public, “I just wanted to see people die.” That would cause a hundred different emotions depending on the person but would hardly come close to bringing closure to anyone’s mind. We in our humanity need to have answers. That is what has brought us all the technology we enjoy today. But that in itself is our biggest enemy when trying to deal with a horrible situation in our lives. Sometimes we have no good answer and have no choice but to deal. That is why we need people. The people in our lives. Our family, friends, community. It is easy to start a battle with someone during a tragedy like this; but our toughest battle is to not bring out the swords and embrase each other’s feelings and emotions. Coming together is always the best answer; rather than, dividing. This is my 2 cents. If you beleive it is a bunch of rubbish…Ok. If you agree…ok. I simply wanted to bring a different point of view.

If I recall correctly, in 2004 the ban on assault weapons expired and the dumbass neocons – being controlled by the NRA, let it expire. So, POS borally, yes, this attack could have been avoided had the fuckin dumbass neocons voted to extend the ban.

And yes, real soon, like within the next couple of days, the neocons – controlled by the NRA, will blame libruls and President Obama. I can already hear that crazy corrupt fucker who is the head of the NRA accusing President Obama of paying Holmes to act so that Americans will be disgusted and call for a ban on guns. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t.

Actually, Twatty/pRick’s right: this will fade quickly from the news — at least on Fox.

By Sunday, they’ll be back to focusing on important things like Obama’ elementary school record, why Mittens will make a great CEO President, and commentary by Sarah Palin on the shooting . . . all the things simpleminded idiots like Twatty love . . .

MLP, you are so right- if everyone in that theatre had a gun, all that would have happened is that someone who panicked would have fired a shot, and the next person to lose it would have shot at him. Then so on, so forth.

The scenario like that scene in “The Rock” where they were about to take the Marines peacefully, then the guy who wanted to kill them all kneed a rock over a ledge because he knew everyone was already so tense they would go full trigger.

Rick, a dude went into a theatre and shot 62 people at a movie the right had been demonizing for a while because they think the villain was created in 1993 just to bash Romney in a 2012 movie version.

Even if this turns out to be a second coincidence, two words: second coincidence. Let’s review:

Most people think that O’Reilly has Knoxville and Tiller’s blood on his hands.

San Francisco still thinks Beck should be up on charges for Williams, and that was at least the third shooting that fit a Beck Narrative.

Sean Hannity and the two radio hosts Lars Larson and Michael Savage are believed to be the largest endorsements of Tea Party racism.

Sarah Palin’s violent rhetoric is legend, and she had a vendetta against Giffords. The Tuscon shooting didn’t even pretend to be a wake up call for her stupid ass.

So yeah- you keep thinking that this will “fade quickly” because it’s not about your precious Princess Sarah. I think this will be haunting the right for a while, because a lot of people are starting to remember a lot of shootings with a strong case that they inspired the shooter.

I’m so tired of reading comments from NRA lackeys that parrot the claim that if enough people in the theater had been armed this tragedy would never have happened.
Yeah, sure.
A dark theater, the killer has an AR-15 with a 100-round barrel magazine and apparently, has set off 2 concealment devices. Oh, and he’s wearing bullet resistant apparel from head to toe. People are running in all directions in a panic.
But some hero realizes immediately what is occurring, finds his target, pulls out his handgun, fires, and takes the villain down before he can do any real damage. The crowd is safe, thanks to MORE guns!!!!
That kind of stupidity is what Fox News and the NRA depend upon for their existence.